Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Commercial Vehicle”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development and Characterization of the Integrally Stiffened Cylinder (ISC) Process for Launch Vehicles and Aircraft Fuselage Structures

Over the past decade, NASA Langley has led development of the Integrally Stiffened Cylinder (ISC) Process, a near-net shape, flow-forming technology. This innovative process is being evaluated for launch vehicle and commercial aircraft manufacturing. A thick-walled, cylindrical preform is flow-formed in a single operation into a thin-walled barrel with longitudinal stiffeners. The one-piece, stiffened barrels offer a direct replacement for conventional multi-piece welded or riveted structures. A cost-benefit analysis for launch vehicles estimated that the ISC process offers up to a 50% reduction in manufacturing costs and a 10% reduction in mass. NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), and industry partners have teamed to manufacture 10-ft. diameter aluminum ISCs. The intent is to demonstrate the commercial viability of the process at a scale relevant to the commercial launch and aircraft industries. Development activities will be presented, including process scale-up, formability assessment, microstructural analysis, and mechanical property testing.

ISC, flow forming, near net shape↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development and Characterization of the Integrally Stiffened Cylinder (ISC) Process for Launch Vehicles and Aircraft Fuselage Structures

Over the past decade, NASA Langley has led development of the Integrally Stiffened Cylinder (ISC) Process, a near-net-shape, flow-forming technology. This innovative process is being evaluated for launch vehicle and commercial aircraft manufacturing. A thick-walled, cylindrical preform is flow-formed using a single operation into a thin-walled barrel with integral longitudinal stiffeners. The one-piece, stiffened barrels offer a direct replacement for conventional multi-piece, welded or riveted structures. A cost-benefit analysis for launch vehicle cryogenic propellant tanks estimated that the ISC process offers up to a 50% reduction in manufacturing costs and a 10% reduction in mass. NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), and industry partners have teamed to manufacture 3-m(10-ft.) diameter aluminum ISCs. The intent is to demonstrate the commercial viability of the process at a scale relevant to the commercial launch and aircraft industries. Development activities will be presented, including process scale-up, formability assessment, and mechanical property testing.

ISC, flow forming, near net shape↗
NASA NTRS2014

The Ergonomics of Human Space Flight: NASA Vehicles and Spacesuits

Space...the final frontier...these are the voyages of the starship...wait, wait, wait...that's not right...let's try that again. NASA is currently focusing on developing multiple strategies to prepare humans for a future trip to Mars. This includes (1) learning and characterizing the human system while in the weightlessness of low earth orbit on the International Space Station and (2) seeding the creation of commercial inspired vehicles by providing guidance and funding to US companies. At the same time, NASA is slowly leading the efforts of reestablishing human deep space travel through the development of the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) known as Orion and the Space Launch System (SLS) with the interim aim of visiting and exploring an asteroid. Without Earth's gravity, current and future human space travel exposes humans to micro- and partial gravity conditions, which are known to force the body to adapt both physically and physiologically. Without the protection of Earth's atmosphere, space is hazardous to most living organisms. To protect themselves from these difficult conditions, Astronauts utilize pressurized spacesuits for both intravehicular travel and extravehicular activities (EVAs). Ensuring a safe living and working environment for space missions requires the creativity of scientists and engineers to assess and mitigate potential risks through engineering designs. The discipline of human factors and ergonomics at NASA is critical in making sure these designs are not just functionally designed for people to use, but are optimally designed to work within the capacities specific to the Astronaut Corps. This lecture will review both current and future NASA vehicles and spacesuits while providing an ergonomic perspective using case studies that were and are being carried out by the Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility (ABF) at NASA's Johnson Space Center.

Reid, Christopher R.↗
NASA NTRS2019

NASA's Space Launch System: Deep Space Access for CubeSats

NASA is embarking on a new generation of missions to the Moon, known as the Artemis program. The Agency’s new super heavy-lift launch vehicle, the Space Launch System (SLS), is a critical enabling capability for these efforts, which will serve as a proving ground for future crewed expeditions to Mars. SLS is designed to return astronauts to the Moon in the Orion spacecraft and to launch more mass and provide more volume for critical payloads than commercially available vehicles, giving NASA a unique asset for deep space exploration. When performance margin and volume is available, as it is on the first flight, Artemis I (previously Exploration Mission-1), SLS can offer CubeSats access to deep space, beyond Earth’s orbit. The Artemis I flight has 13 6U (14 kg) CubeSats manifested, and the Program is currently accepting proposals for 6U and 12U payloads for the Artemis II flight through the agency’s CubeSat Launch Initiative (CSLI) program. Proposals from U.S.-based payload developers to fly on Artemis II will be accepted through CSLI until November 4, 2019. When ridesharing on SLS deep space missions, CubeSats must demonstrate they will not interfere with primary mission objectives. The 13 Artemis I CubeSats that hail from industry, academia, NASA and its international partners represent an array of exciting deep space science investigations and technology demonstrations that may help inform future Artemis missions. The initial SLS Block 1 vehicle for the Artemis I flight is fully manufactured; several elements are complete and have been delivered to the Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) Program at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), which has responsibility for integrating and launching the SLS and Orion stack. Completed elements of the Artemis I vehicle include the Orion Stage Adapter (OSA), which houses the 13 Artemis I CubeSats. With the Artemis I flight hardware and software nearing completion, work is in progress for the second Block 1 launcher, designated for the crewed Artemis II flight. Hardware is being manufactured for every element of the Artemis II vehicle. In this paper, the author will review the status of the Artemis I vehicle and the payloads manifested for the initial flight. Information on the Secondary Payload Deployment System (SPDS) that the SLS Program provides to payload developers will also be included.

Creech, Stephen D.↗
NASA NTRS2012

NASA's Space Launch System Progress Report

Exploration beyond Earth orbit will be an enduring legacy for future generations, as it provides a platform for science and exploration that will define new knowledge and redefine known boundaries. NASA s Space Launch System (SLS) Program, managed at the Marshall Space Flight Center, is responsible for designing and developing the first exploration-class rocket since the Apollo Program s Saturn V that sent Americans to the Moon in the 1960s and 1970s. The SLS offers a flexible design that may be configured for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle with associated life-support equipment and provisions for long journeys or may be outfitted with a payload fairing that will accommodate flagship science instruments and a variety of high-priority experiments. Building on legacy systems, facilities, and expertise, the SLS will have an initial lift capability of 70 tonnes (t) in 2017 and will be evolvable to 130 t after 2021. While commercial launch vehicle providers service the International Space Station market, this capability will surpass all vehicles, past and present, providing the means to do entirely new missions, such as human exploration of Mars. Building on the foundation laid by over 50 years of human and scientific space flight and on the lessons learned from the Apollo, Space Shuttle, and Constellation Programs the SLS team is delivering both technical trade studies and business case analyses to ensure that the SLS architecture will be safe, affordable, reliable, and sustainable. This panel will address the planning and progress being made by NASA s SLS Program.

May, Todd A.↗
NASA NTRS2011

NASA's Space Launch System Progress Report

Exploration beyond Earth will be an enduring legacy for future generations, confirming America's commitment to explore, learn, and progress. NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) Program, managed at the Marshall Space Flight Center, is responsible for designing and developing the first exploration-class rocket since the Apollo Program's Saturn V that sent Americans to the Moon. The SLS offers a flexible design that may be configured for the MultiPurpose Crew Vehicle and associated equipment, or may be outfitted with a payload fairing that will accommodate flagship science instruments and a variety of high-priority experiments. Both options support a national capability that will pay dividends for future generations. Building on legacy systems, facilities, and expertise, the SLS will have an initial lift capability of 70 metric tons (mT) and will be evolvable to 130 mT. While commercial launch vehicle providers service the International Space Station market, this capability will surpass all vehicles, past and present, providing the means to do entirely new missions, such as human exploration of asteroids and Mars. With its superior lift capability, the SLS can expand the interplanetary highway to many possible destinations, conducting revolutionary missions that will change the way we view ourselves, our planet and its place in the cosmos. To perform missions such as these, the SLS will be the largest launch vehicle ever built. It is being designed for safety and affordability - to sustain our journey into the space age. Current plans include launching the first flight, without crew, later this decade, with crewed flights beginning early next decade. Development work now in progress is based on heritage space systems and working knowledge, allowing for a relatively quick start and for maturing the SLS rocket as future technologies become available. Together, NASA and the U.S. aerospace industry are partnering to develop this one-of-a-kind asset. Many of NASA's space centers across the country will provide their unique expertise to the Space Launch System endeavor. Unique infrastructure to be used includes the Michoud Assembly Facility for tank manufacturing, Stennis Space Center for engine testing, and Kennedy Space Center for processing and launch. As this panel will discuss, the SLS team is dedicated to doing things differently-from applying lean oversight/insight models to smartly using legacy hardware and existing facilities. Building on the foundation laid by over 50 years of human and scientific space flight--and on the lessons learned from the Apollo, Space Shuttle, and Constellation Programs-the SLS team has delivered both technical trade studies and business case analyses to ensure that the SLS architecture will be safe, affordable, reliable, and sustainable.

Singer, Joan A.↗
NASA NTRS1974

Propulsion integration for a hybrid propulsive-lift system

In a discussion of STOL vehicles with conventional high-lift devices, the need for efficient power-augmented lift systems is presented, and the implications of quiet operation are noted. The underlying philosophy of a promising hybrid lift system with major interactions between aerodynamic, thermodynamic, acoustic, and configuration design technologies is derived. The technique by which engine and airframe-related characteristics for this application may be matched in an optimum manner is described and illustrated by describing the features of a particular short-haul commercial STOL vehicle.

Bowden, M. K.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of the occurrences of injury during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crewmembers and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80 individual crew landings has been collected through this study. Injuries are classified as either contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), and Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3 %). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), and then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings. The MDRI is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI also vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it will be important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles, and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning.

N Newby↗
NASA NTRS2007

Ares Launch Vehicles Overview: Space Access Society

America is returning to the Moon in preparation for the first human footprint on Mars, guided by the U.S. Vision for Space Exploration. This presentation will discuss NASA's mission, the reasons for returning to the Moon and going to Mars, and how NASA will accomplish that mission in ways that promote leadership in space and economic expansion on the new frontier. The primary goals of the Vision for Space Exploration are to finish the International Space Station, retire the Space Shuttle, and build the new spacecraft needed to return people to the Moon and go to Mars. The Vision commits NASA and the nation to an agenda of exploration that also includes robotic exploration and technology development, while building on lessons learned over 50 years of hard-won experience. NASA is building on common hardware, shared knowledge, and unique experience derived from the Apollo Saturn, Space Shuttle, and contemporary commercial launch vehicle programs. The journeys to the Moon and Mars will require a variety of vehicles, including the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle, which transports the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, and the Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle, which transports the Lunar Surface Access Module. The architecture for the lunar missions will use one launch to ferry the crew into orbit, where it will rendezvous with the Lunar Module in the Earth Departure Stage, which will then propel the combination into lunar orbit. The imperative to explore space with the combination of astronauts and robots will be the impetus for inventions such as solar power and water and waste recycling. This next chapter in NASA's history promises to write the next chapter in American history, as well. It will require this nation to provide the talent to develop tools, machines, materials, processes, technologies, and capabilities that can benefit nearly all aspects of life on Earth. Roles and responsibilities are shared between a nationwide Government and industry team. The Exploration Launch Projects Office at the Marshall Space Flight Center manages the design, development, testing, and evaluation of both vehicles and serves as lead systems integrator. A little over a year after it was chartered, the Exploration Launch Projects team is testing engine components, refining vehicle designs, performing wind tunnel tests, and building hardware for the first flight test of Ares I-X, scheduled for spring 2009. The Exploration Launch Projects team conducted the Ares I System Requirements Review (SRR) at the end of 2006. In Ares' first year, extensive trade studies and evaluations were conducted to refine the design initially recommended by the Exploration Systems Architecture Study, conceptual designs were analyzed for fitness, and the contractual framework was assembled to enable a development effort unparalleled in American space flight since the Space Shuttle. Now, the project turns its focus to the Preliminary Design Review (PDR), scheduled for 2008. Taking into consideration the findings of the SRR, the design of the Ares I is being tightened and refined to meet the safety, operability, reliability, and affordability goals outlined by the Constellation Program. The Ares V is in the early design stage, focusing its activities on requirements validation and ways to develop this heavy-lift system so that synergistic hardware commonality between it and the Ares I can reduce the operational footprint and foster sustained exploration across the decades ahead.

Cook, Steve↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of injury occurrence during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crewmembers and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80 individual crew landings has been collected through this study as of 2021. Injuries are classified either as contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), or Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3 %) (n.b. This is the percent for whom contusion/abrasion was the worst injury. Those with class I or II injuries typically also received contusions/abrasions). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings, but it is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it is important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning. Future work includes expanding this study to involve private space missions on new vehicles to better characterize the effects of time in flight, suit and seat design, and vehicle dynamics.

N Newby↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of injury occurrence during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crew members and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80individual crew landings has been collected through this study as of September 2023. Injuries are classified either as contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), or Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3%) (n.b. This is the percent for whom contusion/abrasion was the worst injury. Those with class I or II injuries typically also received contusions/abrasions). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings, but it is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it is important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning. Future work includes expanding this study to involve private space missions on new vehicles to better characterize the effects of time in flight, suit and seat design, and vehicle dynamics.

N Newby↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization

INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of injury occurrence during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crewmembers and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80 individual crew landings has been collected through this study as of September 2023. Injuries are classified either as contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), or Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3 %) (n.b. This is the percent for whom contusion/abrasion was the worst injury. Those with class I or II injuries typically also received contusions/abrasions). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings, but it is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it is important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning. Future work includes expanding this study to involve private space missions on new vehicles to better characterize the effects of time in flight, suit and seat design, and vehicle dynamics.

P Greenhalgh↗
NASA NTRS2019

Developments on Low Cost Manufacturing Methods for Cylindrical Launch Vehicle Structures

Due to the increasing international competition and growing pressure to lower the cost of launch vehicles, enhanced technologies and competences for efficient, low cost manufacturing have to be developed. In this paper, an innovative manufacturing technology for launch vehicle applications is presented that was developed over the last few years at MT Aerospace AG (MTA) in collaboration with NASA Langley Research Center, the European Space Agency (ESA), Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMCO), Leifeld Metal Spinning and Scot Forge. The Integrally Stiffened Cylinder (ISC) manufacturing method was first investigated in 2010. Early results indicated a high mass saving potential for cylindrical structures for launch vehicle systems, such as cryogenic tank barrels and intertanks, produced using the ISC method. Cost-benefit studies conducted at NASA and MTA estimated up to 50% reduction in manufacturing costs is possible compared to conventional multi-piece, welded fabrication methods. Associated reductions in manufacturing lead times have shown that a 40% faster production rate is possible by the ISC process. Following proof of concept and process development efforts, a cylindrical structure manufactured using the ISC method had its maiden flight in 2015 on a Black Brant sounding rocket at NASA Wallops Flight Facility. Further collaboration between ESA, NASA, MTA, LMCO, and Scot Forge led to manufacturing test campaigns at MT Aerospace in 2017 and 2018 that successfully demonstrated ISC fabrication at a scale representative of commercial launch vehicles. This paper summarizes the status and relevant results of the development sequence of the ISC cylinder manufacturing method. Results of cost / benefit and structural performance analyses are also summarized. Moreover, an outlook will be given on further planned activities and development steps.

Martin Stachulla↗
NASA NTRS2017

Norton-Thevenin Receptance Coupling (NTRC) as a Payload Design Tool

The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) is funding a study to develop an alternate method for performing coupled loads analysis called Norton-Thevenin Receptance Coupling (NTRC). NTRC combines Receptance Coupling (RC), a frequency-domain synthesis method and Norton-Thevenin (NT) theory, an impedance based approach for simulating the interaction between dynamic systems. The goal of developing the NTRC method is to provide a tool that payload developers can use to reduce the conservatism in defining preliminary design loads, assess the impact of design changes between formal load cycles, and to perform trade studies for design optimization with a minimum amount of data required from the launch vehicle (LV) provider. NTRC also has the ability to perform parametric loads analysis where many different design configurations can be evaluated. This will result in cost and schedule benefits to the payload developer that are currently not possible under the standard coupled loads analysis (CLA) flow where typically only 2-3 official load cycles are performed by the LV provider over the life of a payload program. NTRC is not envisioned as a replacement for the official load cycles performed by the LV provider but rather as a means to address the types of design issues faced by the payload developer before and between official load cycles.The presentation provides an overview of the NTRC methodology and discusses how NTRC can be used to replicate the results from a standard LV CLA. The presentation covers the benchmarking that has been performed as part of the NESC study to demonstrate the accuracy of the technique for both frequency and time domain dynamic analyses. Future plans for benchmarking the NTRC approach against CLA results for NASAs Space Launch System (SLS) and commercial launch vehicles are discussed and the role that NTRC is envisioned to play in the payload development cycle.

Structural Dynamics↗
NASA NTRS1980

Laser power beaming for rocket propulsion and airbreathing propulsion

The developing technology of laser power beaming is introduced, and two systems are used as examples of the capabilities of the laser for beamed energy. In the first system, the potential of the laser to power flight systems ranging from hypersonic air-breathing launch vehicles to commercial jet transports is examined. Attention is given to the possibility of an air-breathing propulsion which offers the promise of a global air transportation network independent of kerosene and powered by solar energy. In addition, consideration is given to a new type of rocket propulsion based on the laser's ability to concentrate coherent laser energy to high power densities. Focused laser beams would heat the propellants directly to produce specific impulses approaching ion and MHD rocket levels, and would do so without the burden of a heavy electrical power supply.

Hertzberg, A.↗
NASA NTRS1989

An experimental investigation of multi-element airfoil ice accretion and resulting performance degradation

An investigation of the ice accretion pattern and performance characteristics of a multi-element airfoil was undertaken in the NASA Lewis 6- by 9-Foot Icing Research Tunnel. Several configurations of main airfoil, slat, and flaps were employed to examine the effects of ice accretion and provide further experimental information for code validation purposes. The text matrix consisted of glaze, rime, and mixed icing conditions. Airflow and icing cloud conditions were set to correspond to those typical of the operating environment anticipated tor a commercial transport vehicle. Results obtained included ice profile tracings, photographs of the ice accretions, and force balance measurements obtained both during the accretion process and in a post-accretion evaluation over a range of angles of attack. The tracings and photographs indicated significant accretions on the slat leading edge, in gaps between slat or flaps and the main wing, on the flap leading-edge surfaces, and on flap lower surfaces. Force measurments indicate the possibility of severe performance degradation, especially near C sub Lmax, for both light and heavy ice accretion and performance analysis codes presently in use. The LEWICE code was used to evaluate the ice accretion shape developed during one of the rime ice tests. The actual ice shape was then evaluated, using a Navier-Strokes code, for changes in performance characteristics. These predicted results were compared to the measured results and indicate very good agreement.

Potapczuk, Mark G.↗
NASA NTRS1989

COLD-SAT: An orbital cryogenic hydrogen technology experiment

The COLD-SAT spacecraft will perform subcritical liquid hydrogen storage and transfer experiments under low-gravity conditions to provide engineering data for future space transportation missions. Consisting of an experiment module mated to a spacecraft bus, COLD-SAT will be placed in an initial 460 km circular orbit by an Atlas I commercial launch vehicle. After deployment, the three-axis-controlled spacecraft bus will provide electric power, experiment control and data management, communications, and attitude control along with propulsive acceleration levels ranging from 10(-6) to 10(-4)g. These accelerations are an important aspect of some of the experiments, as it is desired to know the effects that low gravity levels might have on the heat and mass transfer processes involved. The experiment module will contain the three liquid hydrogen tanks, valves, pressurization equipment, and instrumentation. At launch all the hydrogen will be in the largest tank, which has helium-purged MLI and is loaded and topped off by the hydrogen tanking system used for the Centaur upper stage of the Atlas. The two smaller tanks will be utilized in orbit for performing some of the experiments. The experiments are grouped into two classes on the basis of their priority, and include six regarded as enabling technology and nine regarded as enhancing technology.

Schuster, J. R.↗